That it’s very easy for far-right parties to win under bourgeois democracy. That the center (right or left) will always side with the fascists. That the ruling class will quickly change to their side at the first sign of a mass left movement. That mass campaigns of violence against minorities will be overlooked, and far-right militias and mobs will be allowed to enact their own twisted justice on minorities, while authorities look to the side.
I… feel like I’m describing basically what is happening right now all over the “west”. So… yeah. It’s not something we can stop until we take power. The people in power will always side with the fascists, against us.
Don’t pretend this is about the people in Donetsk or Luhansk. Like those people had any democratic rights before the war…
Slaves don’t earn wages to buy products. The slave-owners have to spend funds to feed, house them etc.
But it was really more about creating consumer markets. There is no capitalism without vast consumer markets for mass produced goods.
Mercantile slavery produced less, more artisanal goods, for a very small class of people (aristocracy and nascent bourgeoisie).
And it wasn’t possible to expand the consumer markets without creating a new class of people who had an income to spend on commodities.
This is extremely simplified, but it’s the main interpretation for the end of slavery. Like, when we study the Industrial Revolution, the British empire and the end of slavery in school, it’s always under that lens, of creating new consumer markets.
But just to make it clear, slavery is still lucrative, to this day. Which is why we have more slaves in absolute numbers now than at any other point in history. But it can’t be the main relation of production, because capitalism depends on mass consumption by masses of people. So slavery can only ever exist as a marginal system.
It was more profitable for the nascent capitalist class to have a wage workers than slaves, it’s just that.
Idgaf, death to America
“Frame” the US Army..? Bro the great satan doesn’t need any framing, its sins are dripping from its fangs and claws.
I was being pedantic. There is no such thing as Stalinism, that article is a joke. Stalin was just a Marxist Leninist.
The real rich don’t pay any income tax tho? Not sure what you mean. Sure the high-income developers and engineers and lawyers etc. would become a richer, but they are not the rich, are they? The owners of the businesses they work at are. And they don’t pay income taxes.
https://youtu.be/31e0RcImReY?si=18IbWnHxRGAfticv
From the title it might not sound super related, but she goes super in depth on how these intelligence researches usually are extremely problematic. As in literally telling women that women did better in these tests made them perform as well or better than men in typically “male intelligence areas”. We don’t really understand intelligence, and how it develops, and how to measure it.
So ascribing higher or lower intelligence in certain fields to certain groups just doesn’t work. Irregardless for how statistically sound it might be. We just don’t understand the parameters around it well enough to control for it.
After seeing the most recent münecat video I don’t believe research like this anymore.
Yeah we made a huge mistake being born wrong 😕
That does make intuitive sense, but archeology shows otherwise. There was a much bigger diversity of gender roles and relationship structures/child rearing systems, including in agricultural societies.
The modern almost universal ideal of romantic monogamous nuclear relationships was born from romantic (as in the movement) puritan petit bourgeois ideals in the 19th century.
Working class women during the medieval age for example, worked and lived outside the home, had affairs etc. This changed around the 18th century with the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and working class mirroring of their ideals.
Basically while it’s true that patriarchal strictly dichotomous societies existed for as long as we can tell, And that they have prevailed and “won out”. But doesn’t mean they are the norm for humanity. Their universality is extremely recent.
Just a small correction: most people look at relationships in terms of some very rigid ideals that were set a couple centuries ago at most.
Just play as Sweden to get the hang of things 🤷♂️
It’s not. It’s about the real implications it might have, such as for eugenics and genetically enhanced soldiers. But it also does talk a lot about the real good it does and can do. But the main points are about those two topics. That like with every technology, the issue is the social and political structures around their use. And also how eugenics never really went away. In many ways it’s using CRISPR to start a conversation about eugenics tbh.
You don’t know what you are talking about lmao
The Why Files is one of the best YouTube channels out there. They talk about fringe and conspiracy subjects but debunk them. You didn’t even watch the video and you are just making a BUNCH of assumptions that have nothing to do with it.
It looks like it has a more snake-like body, or more like a Chinese dragon.